The operator of a mining machine is exposed to a variety of dangers including those associated with the mine itself and those associated with the machinery used in the mine. These dangers include roof falls, "rib rolls", "equipment squeezes", and "runovers". To lessen these dangers, a number of approaches have been taken in an attempt to protect the operator. One approach has been to provide for remote control of the mining machine so that the operator does not have to ride the machine to the situs of the actual mining operation but can operate the machine at a distance from the machine. Conventionally, operators of such remote controlled machines have stood unprotected under the supported roof. Thus, although they are removed from the point where the actual mining of coal takes place, the operators still are vulnerable to other dangers such as so-called"rib rolls" or dangers from moving machinery such as shuttle cars.
Another approach to this problem would be to place the operator in the cab of a separate self-propelled vehicle and thus enable him to remotely operate the mining macnine from the vehicle after the vehicle has been propelled to a safe location. However, this approach is obviously expensive and increases the complexity of the mining section, with the addition of a further motorized vehicle.
A further approach involves locating the operator in a protective structure which is towed into position by the mining machine. The chief drawback of this approach is the lack of manueverability provided thereby, with backing out of an entry providing particular difficult problems.
Examples of patented machines which are representative of attempts to better protect the operator of mining machines and the like are found in U.S. Pat. Nos. 3,768,574 (Long); 3,210,122 (Moon); 3,776,594 (Ewing); and 3,784,159 (Skattman), although this listing is, of course, far from exhaustive.